1. Your one night stand could be a one life headache.2. The end of dating as we know it.3. What if your wife/sister/girlfriend/mother gets raped or has a severely health-threatening pregnancy?4. Gay guys? Mitt Romney wants to add an amendment to the constitution to restrict your right to marry the person of your choice.5. So you're a responsible guy who lives as a respectable citizen of Romn-erica, only having sex with your subservient Kolob-sanctioned wife and earning the millions of dollars necessary to pay for health care for your giant brood without having to rely on the government. You're still going to pay for this, one way or another.

LectertheChef:Smelly McUgly: I try really hard to avoid the Gawker sites, so if someone might please summarize that whole thing...

1. Your one night stand could be a one life headache.2. The end of dating as we know it.3. What if your wife/sister/girlfriend/mother gets raped or has a severely health-threatening pregnancy?4. Gay guys? Mitt Romney wants to add an amendment to the constitution to restrict your right to marry the person of your choice.5. So you're a responsible guy who lives as a respectable citizen of Romn-erica, only having sex with your subservient Kolob-sanctioned wife and earning the millions of dollars necessary to pay for health care for your giant brood without having to rely on the government. You're still going to pay for this, one way or another.

Obvious article is obvious. I often* tell single guys that if they want to keep having sex with women, they should stop villifying those sex-having women by calling them sluts. It's that whole unintended consequences thing.

wee:I refuse to read certain things based on their source. That list is really, really small. Jezebel is in the top three.

Why would anyone waste their time reading that nonsense?

That site would be on your top three?WND, The Stinker, Townhall, Breitbart, the editorial page of Investor's Business Daily, the Blaze, CNSNews, the Daily Caller, and anything with Krauthammer in the byline - you don't have at least three of those on that list above Jezebel?

Not that I'm surprised, this being a Jezebel article and all, but damn was that some sexist shiat. Not to mention hyperbolic. Fortunately for them I was already planning to vote for Obama, because this would not really have done much to convince me otherwise...

LectertheChef:Smelly McUgly: I try really hard to avoid the Gawker sites, so if someone might please summarize that whole thing...

1. Your one night stand could be a one life headache. Pregnancy2. The end of dating as we know it. Pregnancy3. What if your wife/sister/girlfriend/mother gets raped or has a severely health-threatening pregnancy?4. Gay guys? Mitt Romney wants to add an amendment to the constitution to restrict your right to marry the person of your choice.5. So you're a responsible guy who lives as a respectable citizen of Romn-erica, only having sex with your subservient Kolob-sanctioned wife and earning the millions of dollars necessary to pay for health care for your giant brood without having to rely on the government. You're still going to pay for this, one way or another.

1) Expect to pay a lot more child support if you have casual sex since birth control and abortion are endangered2) Expect to have a lot less per-marital sex because sex will be riskier for women3) Expect to have less marital sex because being married does not mean you can afford to turn your wife's cooch into a clown car.4) Expect to raise the bastards of rapists.

the health care bill forces insurance companies to charge the same rate for men and women desptie the fact that women consume much much more medicine than men do. at my age womens insurance is double that of mens because of this. i dont want to be forced to subsidize the medicine of women. especially when, for example, there is no public outcry that mens car insurance is more expensive. people should pay for the things they want, other people should not be forced to pay it for them.

"but women need that medicine to stay healthy" seems to be the argument. Well as a man i need about double the daily calories to stay healthy. Does that mean that women should be forced to subsidize my grocery bill? feminism is about mitigating the disadvantages of women while ignoring or exacerbating the disadvantages of men. and that is sexism.

Stopped reading when he author started ranting about how Romney wants to make birth control "less accessible." Which is a bold-faced lie. Nobody on the right at all is talking about banning the pill. All we are doing is opposing yet-to-take-effect changes that would force people who believe birth control is wrong to pay for it. So, in other words, to keep -and not change - the current status quo. Is birth control accessible now? Then stop whining. We are trying to stop a change on that issue, not to force a change.

This whole "war on women" narrative is based on total misrepresentation and out-right lies.

GF named my left testicle thundercles:the health care bill forces insurance companies to charge the same rate for men and women desptie the fact that women consume much much more medicine than men do. at my age womens insurance is double that of mens because of this. i dont want to be forced to subsidize the medicine of women. especially when, for example, there is no public outcry that mens car insurance is more expensive. people should pay for the things they want, other people should not be forced to pay it for them.

"but women need that medicine to stay healthy" seems to be the argument. Well as a man i need about double the daily calories to stay healthy. Does that mean that women should be forced to subsidize my grocery bill? feminism is about mitigating the disadvantages of women while ignoring or exacerbating the disadvantages of men. and that is sexism.

Actually, women do visit doctors more often than men, and until about the age of 50, they do spend more on health care. At fifty, the situations reverse in a big way. Most of the cost of care for women is regular check-ups. We need pap smears (a very cheap test) every year, so we get a general checkup once a year. Now, there's nothing really expensive about preventative care, but over a 30 year span it adds up. And child birth and the the related pre- and post-natal care is very costly. (This is one of the reasons insurance companies were falling over themselves to eliminate the co-pay for birth control. The other is that birth control which could cost a woman a couple thousand dollars out-of-pocket would cost the insurance companies a tiny fraction of that amount.)

So, for about thirty years, women a spending a small, steady amount (except for pregnancy) compared to men who spend virtually nothing. Then guys hit fifty. All those things they've been ignoring for the last 30 years? Yeah, they're a LOT more costly to treat. Women have fewer problems over fifty than man, and they tend to be less expensive because regular check-ups mean early detection. Early detection means cheaper and easier to treat. Do you think it would be a good idea if we all agreed not to cover the crippling costs of health care for men over 50?

Cato:Stopped reading when he author started ranting about how Romney wants to make birth control "less accessible." Which is a bold-faced lie. Nobody on the right at all is talking about banning the pill. All we are doing is opposing yet-to-take-effect changes that would force people who believe birth control is wrong to pay for it. So, in other words, to keep -and not change - the current status quo. Is birth control accessible now? Then stop whining. We are trying to stop a change on that issue, not to force a change.

This whole "war on women" narrative is based on total misrepresentation and out-right lies.

Fine... you no wanna pay for birth control??? I no wanna pay for boner pills...so jerk on that limp bayonet.

You no wanna pay for my tubal ligation so I can play woithout paying, then I no pay for your de-nutting so you can.

Cato:Stopped reading when he author started ranting about how Romney wants to make birth control "less accessible." Which is a bold-faced lie. Nobody on the right at all is talking about banning the pill. All we are doing is opposing yet-to-take-effect changes that would force people who believe birth control is wrong to pay for it. So, in other words, to keep -and not change - the current status quo. Is birth control accessible now? Then stop whining. We are trying to stop a change on that issue, not to force a change.

This whole "war on women" narrative is based on total misrepresentation and out-right lies.

Romney chose a running mate who has come down against contraception. He wants to defund Planned Parenthood, a major provider of birth control to working poor women and college students. Romney also wants to cut Medicaid, a program that provides things like birth control to the destitute. Romney wants to eliminate Obamacare which allows women's insurance premium payments to cover the full cost of birth control as a measure to cut the exorbitant costs of unplanned pregnancies.

Yes, it's true that Romney has never specifically said he want to make it harder for women to get birth control. Of course, his policies WILL make it harder for women to get birth control, but words speak louder than actions.

another example of cheaper mens healthcare at old age is prostate cancer vs breast cancer. breast cancer is extremely life threatening and aggressive so it has to be treated immediately. prostate cancer is slow growing and it is likely that a man will die of other causes before the cancer is a threat. thats why doctors are starting to stop prostate cancer screaning exams but breast exams and cervix exams are common. women are more expensive at all ages.

In February 2012, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa convened an all-male panel addressing contraceptive mandates for health insurers. He did not allow Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law Center student, to participate in the hearing.[74] Democratic Representatives then staged a separate panel where Fluke was allowed to speak. Later that month, American conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh controversially called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" and continued in similar fashion for the next two days.[75] Foster Friess, the billionaire supporting the candidacy of Rick Santorum, suggested in February 2012 that women put aspirin between their knees as a form of contraception.[76] Limbaugh echoed the sentiment, saying he would "buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want."[77] Nancy Pelosi circulated a petition and asked that Republicans in the House of Representatives disavow the comments by Friess and Limbaugh, which she called "vicious and inappropriate."[78]

GF named my left testicle thundercles:the health care bill forces insurance companies to charge the same rate for men and women desptie the fact that women consume much much more medicine than men do. at my age womens insurance is double that of mens because of this. i dont want to be forced to subsidize the medicine of women. especially when, for example, there is no public outcry that mens car insurance is more expensive. people should pay for the things they want, other people should not be forced to pay it for them.

"but women need that medicine to stay healthy" seems to be the argument. Well as a man i need about double the daily calories to stay healthy. Does that mean that women should be forced to subsidize my grocery bill? feminism is about mitigating the disadvantages of women while ignoring or exacerbating the disadvantages of men. and that is sexism.

You might have a point if you were a gay guy/celibate priest, but if you have sex with ladies, then their birth control is your birth control.

DeaH:Cato: Stopped reading when he author started ranting about how Romney wants to make birth control "less accessible." Which is a bold-faced lie. Nobody on the right at all is talking about banning the pill. All we are doing is opposing yet-to-take-effect changes that would force people who believe birth control is wrong to pay for it. So, in other words, to keep -and not change - the current status quo. Is birth control accessible now? Then stop whining. We are trying to stop a change on that issue, not to force a change.

This whole "war on women" narrative is based on total misrepresentation and out-right lies.

Romney chose a running mate who has come down against contraception. He wants to defund Planned Parenthood, a major provider of birth control to working poor women and college students. Romney also wants to cut Medicaid, a program that provides things like birth control to the destitute. Romney wants to eliminate Obamacare which allows women's insurance premium payments to cover the full cost of birth control as a measure to cut the exorbitant costs of unplanned pregnancies.

Yes, it's true that Romney has never specifically said he want to make it harder for women to get birth control. Of course, his policies WILL make it harder for women to get birth control, but words speak louder than actions.

LOL. You are still talking about mechanism to take money from people who find it immoral to make them pay for it. Not accessibility at all. If all you have are "Republicans don't want to force people to fund it" and try to spin it as "omg, the fascists are trying to ban the pill!" then you ARE misrepresenting things. And in a rather desperate fashion.

Oh, and trying to claim that the debate over Planned Parenthood or Medicare ars somehow centered around birth control is a massive reach. You know it and I know it.

1. Your one night stand could be a one life headache.2. The end of dating as we know it.3. What if your wife/sister/girlfriend/mother gets raped or has a severely health-threatening pregnancy?4. Gay guys? Mitt Romney wants to add an amendment to the constitution to restrict your right to marry the person of your choice.5. So you're a responsible guy who lives as a respectable citizen of Romn-erica, only having sex with your subservient Kolob-sanctioned wife and earning the millions of dollars necessary to pay for health care for your giant brood without having to rely on the government. You're still going to pay for this, one way or another.

In February 2012, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa convened an all-male panel addressing contraceptive mandates for health insurers. He did not allow Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law Center student, to participate in the hearing.[74] Democratic Representatives then staged a separate panel where Fluke was allowed to speak. Later that month, American conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh controversially called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" and continued in similar fashion for the next two days.[75] Foster Friess, the billionaire supporting the candidacy of Rick Santorum, suggested in February 2012 that women put aspirin between their knees as a form of contraception.[76] Limbaugh echoed the sentiment, saying he would "buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want."[77] Nancy Pelosi circulated a petition and asked that Republicans in the House of Representatives disavow the comments by Friess and Limbaugh, which she called "vicious and inappropriate."[78]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Women

SHUT THE fark UP YOU WOMAN HATING DISHONEST PARTISAN ASSBAG

Wow, bold AND caps-lock. Ooo, intense. How are you not already on my ignore list?

In any event, for the life of me I do not understand how, in a Congressional hearing about what should and should not be considered religious institutions, what kind of relgious exemption to laws is just, and the what the legal implications of the 1st amendment's free exercise guarantee are, testimony from a college student whose only claim to fame is liking sex - and liking it SO much that she needs a pile of birthcontrol so high she can't possibly afford it on her own, despite paying tuition at a rather pricey private university - could possibly in any way, shape, or form be considered relevent at all. I mean, they also didn't hear testimony from my uncle the taxidermist or my third-grade teacher, both of whom are about as relevent to that hearing than Fluke was.